Related Links

Super-size home moratorium fails to get enough votes

Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM.

Tyler Newman, who spoke on behalf of the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, said the proposed moratorium would have been inconsistent with a new state law that prohibits moratoria “for the purpose of developing and adopting new or amended plans or ordinances as to residential uses.”

Newman said the limit on the number or bedrooms was an arbitrary number that could impact jobs, room occupancy taxes and the tourism economy but would not address existing situations regarding parking, trash and other concerns.

“This seems especially arbitrary when you consider the existing building constraints in a beach town including market demand, lot sizes, town codes, building codes, fire codes, setbacks, flood insurance and height limitations already impact investment and tax base in the town,” he said.

Town resident Pat Stigall spoke in favor of the moratorium, noting concerns she and her husband saw regarding trash, traffic and parking as a trend toward larger homes was seen at a beach community where they formerly owned property. They don’t want to see the same at North Topsail.

The moratorium didn’t pass but Stigall said she’s hopeful the town’s review of the issues will be helpful.

“I think if they allow (the large homes) by special use permit and enforce existing regulations for parking and trash pick-up it would be better,” she said.

The Town of North Topsail Beach will give its regulations related to super-size houses a closer look but without putting a hold on their construction.

The Board of Aldermen voted 3-1 in favor of adopting an ordinance to enact a 60-day moratorium on homes more than seven bedrooms and 5,000 square feet; however, the motion needed a two-thirds majority, or four votes, to be approved.

Mayor Dan Tuman was absent from the meeting and Alderman Suzanne Gray cast the opposing vote.

Gray said she came into the meeting leaning toward support for a moratorium but after hearing comments during the public hearing she felt the concerns raised such as parking and congestion can be addressed without a moratorium.

“Let’s look at the issues causing the problems,” she said.

The town brought up the possibility of a moratorium to give the board time to address public health and safety issues such as fire and emergency services access, congestion, adequate parking, and noise in regards to the large, high occupancy home, primarily used as vacation rentals.

While the moratorium was not approved, the board did direct the planning director to have the planning board discuss the various issues brought up during the hearing and to make a recommendation to the Board of Alderman on possible amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance, including possible requirements for special use permits.

A public hearing on the proposed recommendations is scheduled for the board’s June 5 meeting.

The actions by the board followed a Wednesday morning public hearing during which 20 people spoke, all but one against the proposed moratorium.

Town resident Stuart Harness he’ll continue to watch what recommendations may come back to the town board but he was pleased with the vote.

“By taking people’s property rights away, that’s not the way to solve the problems,” he said.

Several people who spoke were from the real estate or building industry and noted a moratorium would not address issues with existing properties.

Tyler Newman, who spoke on behalf of the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, said the proposed moratorium would have been inconsistent with a new state law that prohibits moratoria “for the purpose of developing and adopting new or amended plans or ordinances as to residential uses.”

Newman said the limit on the number or bedrooms was an arbitrary number that could impact jobs, room occupancy taxes and the tourism economy but would not address existing situations regarding parking, trash and other concerns.

“This seems especially arbitrary when you consider the existing building constraints in a beach town including market demand, lot sizes, town codes, building codes, fire codes, setbacks, flood insurance and height limitations already impact investment and tax base in the town,” he said.

Town resident Pat Stigall spoke in favor of the moratorium, noting concerns she and her husband saw regarding trash, traffic and parking as a trend toward larger homes was seen at a beach community where they formerly owned property. They don’t want to see the same at North Topsail.

The moratorium didn’t pass but Stigall said she’s hopeful the town’s review of the issues will be helpful.

“I think if they allow (the large homes) by special use permit and enforce existing regulations for parking and trash pick-up it would be better,” she said.

----------

A proposed moratorium that would have put a hold on the construction of super-size homes failed to get the votes needed to be enacted this morning in North Topsail Beach.

The Board of Aldermen voted 3-1 in favor of a motion for a 60-day moratorium on homes more than seven bedrooms and 5,000 square feet but needed a two-thirds majority, or four votes, to be approved. Alderman Suzanne Gray was the one opposing vote. Mayor Dan Tuman was absent from the meeting.

The action followed a public hearing during which 20 people spoke, all but one in opposition to a moratorium.